The evaluation analyzed administrative data acquired from the six States that participated in the 2012 Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) Demonstrations to examine the impact of the demonstrations on participation. It found that the impacts on participation were mixed. For the Backpack demonstration, sites in one State increased the number of children and meals served, sites in another State served more meals but did not increase the number of children served, and both meals and children served decreased in the third State. Analysis of the Meal Delivery demonstration indicates the demonstration likely increased the number of children served.
The evaluation used interviews and site visits to capture implementation strategies and stakeholders’ views of the 2012 Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) demonstrations. Results indicated that sites used different strategies for recruitment and outreach; the types of food delivered; training; and technical assistance. Site administrators felt that previous experience operating an SFSP site; good use of partnerships, volunteers, consultants, and activities to make the projects family friendly; a focus on healthful eating; and careful use of resources for efficiency were important to successful implementation. Also, both participating families and site operators felt the demonstrations were an important resource to address summer hunger.
The evaluation examined the impact of a $30 per child per month benefit on child, adult and household food security relative to a $60 monthly benefit. It found that the $30 benefit was as effective in reducing the most severe category of food insecurity among children during the summer as the $60 benefit.
This 2013 assessment of the family daycare homes (FDCHs) component of CACFP provides a national estimate of the share of the roughly 123,000 participating FDCHs that are approved for an incorrect level of per meal reimbursement, or reimbursement "tier" for their circumstances.
The study generates national estimates of administrative error in eligibility determinations and benefit issuance for free or reduced-price school meals. For school year 2012-2013, local education agencies correctly certified 96.4% of students who applied for meal benefits. LEAs assigned the correct free, reduced-price, or paid status to a slightly smaller 96.2% of students.
The purpose of this study is to describe current methods of direct certification used by state and local agencies and challenges facing states and local education agencies in attaining high matching rates.
This Congressional report summarizes the implementation and evaluation of two approaches tested in the summers of 2011 through 2013.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act directed USDA to study the extent to which school food authorities participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs pay indirect costs to local education agencies. It specifically requested an assessment of the methodologies used to establish indirect costs, the types and amounts of indirect costs that are charged and not charged to the school foodservice account, and the types and amounts of indirect costs recovered by LEAs.
The information in this first year study (school year 2011-12) will provide a baseline for observing the improvements resulting from the implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
Under the Community Eligibility Provision, schools do not collect or process meal applications for free and reduced-price meals served in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. Schools must serve all meals at no cost with any costs in excess of the federal reimbursement paid from non-federal sources.